January 3, 2011
Summary of the Upcoming Changes to NSF Proposal Policies
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has issued a revised Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Guide. The revised PAPPG (NSF 11-1) is available at:
The new PAPPG will be effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011 (This effective date applies to any proposals due January 15th due to the weekend and following MLK holiday on Monday.) Significant changes and clarification include:
NSF 11-1 January 2011
Significant Changes to the GPG
Chapter II.C.2.j, Special Information and Supplementary Documentation, contains a clarification of NSF’s long standing data policy. All proposals must describe plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, or assert the absence of the need for such plans.Fastlane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Data Management Plan. Cross-references are included in the Project Description section (II.C.2.d), the Results from Prior NSF Support (II.C.2.d(iii)), Proposals for Conferences, Symposia and Workshops (II.D.8), and the Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II-1). The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as part of the intellectual merit or broader impacts of the proposal or both.
- Proposals must include the plan as a supplementary document of no more than two pages. In addition, proposers are advised that data management requirements and plans specific to a certain Directorate, Office, Division, Program or other NSF unit are available on the NSF website at
- There are many resources available online including an FAQ found at this link:
Chapter II.C.2.g(xi), Cost Sharing, has been revised to implement the National Science Board’s recommendations regarding cost sharing. Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited, Awardees are informed, however, that they remain subject to the OMB A-21 Clarification memo regarding committing and tracking faculty effort (see footnote 22). In order to assess the scope of the project, all organizational resources necessary for the project must be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section (II.C.2.i). The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director.
- Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing DEFINED:
“Voluntary” means that the funds and/or resources are not required by NSF. “Committed” means, once the funds and/or resources are guaranteed in the proposal, the University is responsible for making sure they are provided. “Cost-Sharing” means that sources of funds and/or resources, other than those from NSF, are being guaranteed by the University. (Do not confuse Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing with Voluntary Uncommitted Cost Sharing. “Uncommitted” means that the cost sharing is NOT mentioned in the proposal, but funds and/or resources are provided by the University.) - Mention of Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing is PROHIBITED anywhere in the NSF application:
NSF now prohibits Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing in all components of the proposal including support letters and letters of commitment. In order to assess the scope of the project, NSF has broadened the intent and usage of the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (FER) section. All organizational resources necessary for the project (both physical and personnel) must be described in the FER section of the proposal (see NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.i for more information). Although these items will not be tracked in the financial accounts, NSF does expect that the funds and/or resources identified in the FER will actually be provided should the proposal be funded. If an institution addresses voluntary committed cost sharing in the proposal, NSF may return the proposal without review.
See the FAQ’s on cost sharing at this web link:
Chapter II.C.2.a, Cover Sheet, has been revised for consistency with the requirements of the Federal Funding & Accountability Act, to replace the Performing/Research Organization information with Project/Performance Site Primary Location information. This change already has been made on a government-wide basis in the SF 424 family of forms. If the project will be performed at a location other than the awardee, additional geographic information must be provided.
Clarifications and Other Changes to the GPG
Chapter I.E.2, Who May Submit Proposals, has been clarified to state that nonprofit, non-academic organizations must be located in the U.S., which is consistent with the eligibility guidance for universities and colleges.
Chapter I.G.3, Requirements Relating to Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Numbers and Registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), has been updated to reflect the requirements specified in the recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy directive (September 14, 2010, 75 FR 22706) on these topics. Each proposer must have a DUNS number and be registered in the CCR database prior to submission of a proposal to NSF. The CCR registration must be kept active and current at all times when an organization has an active award or a proposal
under consideration by NSF.
Chapter II.C.2, Sections of the Proposal, has been supplemented to make it clear that failure to submit all required sections of the proposal may result in the proposal being returned without review.
Chapter II.C.2.b, Project Summary, has been updated to encourage use of separate headings for the merit review criteria in the one page Project Summary.
Chapter II.C.2.j, Special Information and Supplementary Documentation, has been clarified via a footnote to show that a mentoring plan is not required for postdoctoral researchers who are listed as Senior Personnel on the NSF Budget.
Chapter II.D.4.b, Collaborative Proposals, has been supplemented to reinforce that all components of a collaborative proposal must meet any established deadline or risk being returned without review.
Chapter III.C, Proposal File Updates, has been revised to explain that the Proposal File Update Module can no longer be used to submit revised budgets. They must now be submitted via the FastLane Revised Proposal Budget Module.
Chapter III.F, Review Information Provided to PI, has been supplemented to state that PIs are provided copies of their reviews to improve research methods and future submissions and are not intended for any other purpose.
Chapter V, Renewal Proposals, has been supplemented with a reminder that renewal proposals must be developed as if the applicant is applying for the first time. Also that the National Science Board (NSB) endorses the principle that all expiring awards should be recompeted; a link is included to the related NSB Resolution.
Please contact your Pre-Award Center with questions or comments related to this document.